Menu

Farm Bureau administrators and lawyers met in Charlotte, N.C., this fall to develop a plan for being more strategic in their litigation work.

The legal advocacy program they are developing will be a strategy to identify opportunities to shape agricultural and environmental policy through litigation and a process of determining when to file lawsuits.

"Rather than just being on the defensive when other groups file suit against the government, for example, Farm Bureau attorneys want to be more proactive and use that tool as well," explained Julie Anna Potts, American Farm Bureau Federation general counsel. She said litigation is expensive, and it's important to have a process to ensure that legal work advances Farm Bureau policies.

OFBF Director of Local Affairs Larry Gearhardt said the legal advocacy program will allow state Farm Bureaus to take advantage of collective resources and offer "a unified legal front on issues with broad application," he said.

One example Gearhardt cited is the case Kelo v. City of New London. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case and decide whether the Constitution allows the government to use eminent domain to take one person’s home or small business so a bigger business can make more money off that land and pay more taxes as a result. The AFBF board has authorized participation with an amicus brief, and Ohio Farm Bureau signed it.

Some environmental groups have been particularly successful at filing lawsuits in jurisdictions with judges who are friendly toward the groups' arguments. They've often won, resulting in new permitting requirements on farmers and ranchers, or controls on how they can run their operations. A case in point is the ruling earlier this year that resulted in farmers in Washington, Oregon and parts of California being banned from using 38 pesticides near "salmon-supporting waters," even though there was no evidence that such waters actually are home to salmon or that the pesticides harm the fish. Several environmental groups filed the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency.

Gearhardt said this new AFBF program will give states the opportunity to challenge issues and band together. "With increased agency regulations and urban areas looking to acquire more land, it is amplifying the need to do something like this," he said.

Another goal of the program is to improve communication among Farm Bureau attorneys, including sharing of information via a controlled-access Web site. Potts said she hopes a first version of the site will be ready by the end of the year, with enhancements in the following months.

The ideas that make up the legal advocacy program came from state Farm Bureaus, and Potts said the steering committee has been particularly energetic in working to turn the concept into a reality.

"The steering committee will decide how they want to structure this," Potts said. "I will collect their input and present their ideas to the AFBF board of directors, but the state Farm Bureaus deserve the credit for coming up with this great plan. It's going to help Farm Bureau be more coordinated, strategic and strong in its ability to influence regulations and policy."

AFBF President Bob Stallman also was at the meeting, and he told the group the AFBF board supports the concept, according to Potts.

A steering committee consisting of attorneys from five state Farm Bureaus will work on a written proposal for the legal advocacy program during the next two to three months. They plan to meet again during the AFBF convention in January.